The Altar Rails Came Back

[OutinChgoburbs]

My church still has its altar rails - as do many of the older churches I have attended. However, I have never seen these used - how do the logistics work? Would the entire row of kneeling communicants remain kneeling until all had received - then stand up and be replaced by another group en masse?

Also, we currently receive under both species - how does that work with a communion rail?

The communicants line up like now, and fill in along the rail until there isn’t anymore space. The individual receives the Lord. Then that person gets up, and another fills his place.

The alternative is waiting until everybody along the rail receives, getting up, then “manning the rail” again.

Anglican Use receives the Precious Blood without a problem. The alternative is intinction (dipping the Body in the Blood).

 

[Jennifer_G]

There are alot of reasons for the lack of reverence in the Mass in the Church today.It was a long growing process of spiralling -downward-it seems.
In many of our Masses here, in the recent past, I have seen teenage girls and young women come to Mass in the summertime in hip-hugger short shorts, bare-midriff halter-tops and sandals! They went up to receive Communion that way! Some people would say:“Well, at least they believe and are coming to Mass”! Yes, that’s good, but reverence should be there.
The Communion rail being taken out was, I think, part of this spiralling downward at the Mass, and I feel just as important in this regard was the lack of women covering their hair with hats or Mantillas. It is hard to imagine that someone would cover their hair IN REVERENCE and then come in a halter top!
I attend the Indult Latin Mass offered by the FSSP here, at St. Patricks’ and it is very quiet, reverent and respectful. We kneel at the Communion rail and most women and girls cover their hair and people do not talk during, before or after Mass. Thank you ArchBishop Curtiss for allowing us this opportunity:thumbsup:

I can remember back in the early 80s when everyone still wore dresses (and suits), and hats.

 

[lukefan]

I’m one of the “dreaded jeans wearer” to Mass. I grew up in a small poor parish and there was really none of the “Sunday best” just people there in their “best clothes” and that was it. I remember distinctly a very devout 20 something man who would come in bare feet! We never knew who he was but he was there every week!

In our current parish, it would be called upper to upper middle class. People dress in their finery which is fine, I generally wear decent jeans and a sweater/blouse. I’m more distracted with the “commotion” at mass, not what people are wearing. During the consecration when you are trying to take it all in, and you have people looking around at who is there, people, even adults, taking that time to go to the restroom, kids eating a full course meal all laid out in the pew! I really like when people have taken Communion and then wave to all the people they know when they return to the pew. I’ve learned to just keep my head down or look straight ahead to avoid the “social walk”.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I look at the different ways to recieve the eucharist, and thank God for giving us a Church that can be flexible! Different ways for different people, and all approved by the Church. Of course people need to be careful not to come up with their own versions of ‘different’ without making sure they’re okay… it’s sad to hear about things like the EMHCs who took over communion!!!

When I wanted to start receiving on the tounge, I asked my priest about it, and he asked me very politely not to, because of germs, etc. He said it in a way that told me that he would give it to me on the tounge if I really wanted to, but he rathered I didn’t… So I let it go. I can be reverent when receiving on the hand as well, though I did jump at the chance to receive kneeling when I visited a church in Ottawa, as that was what the majority of the congregation was doing. It’s no different, really… you could just as easily be irreverent kneeling as standing, in my view… it all depends on where your mind is at the moment.

Receive in whatever way is the best for YOU to be most reverent! That’s just my two-cents.

 

[palmas85]

Did the same EMHC do a study about what happens when communion is given on the tongue?

I’d be willing to make a fairly sizable bet that even with patens there are still plenty of particles that fall on the ground as well to get trampled on.

Really grasping at straws now aren’ t you. Would you care to offer and explanation as to how? Once the Host is on the tongue unless you throw up, particles aren’t going to fall anywhere except posibly inside the mouth,. In your hand, just by touching it particles will remain on the hand. That was the rationale of using the paten in the first place, to catch any minute particles that fell during the transfer from the Priests hand to the communicants tongue.

 

[Formosus]

Did the same EMHC do a study about what happens when communion is given on the tongue?

I’d be willing to make a fairly sizable bet that even with patens there are still plenty of particles that fall on the ground as well to get trampled on.

The likelyhood of particles falling to the ground with communion on the tongue is very very very slim and no where near the same likelyhood as communion in the hand. If the priest administers communion on the tongue and keeps his thumb and index finger together like it was Traditionally, then the chance for particles falling from his hands are slim, then one he places the Host on the tongue, the chance of particles falling anywhere outside the mouth are quite unlikely. The paten collects the few particles that might fall and they are reverently taken care of. Communion on the tongue, also, if done right does not spread germs and Communion under both species could be done by Intiction like the maronites do (btw they all receive on the tongue and don’t even have altar rails ).

 

[LilyM]

Really grasping at straws now aren’ t you. Would you care to offer and explanation as to how? Once the Host is on the tongue unless you throw up, particles aren’t going to fall anywhere except posibly inside the mouth,. In your hand, just by touching it particles will remain on the hand. That was the rationale of using the paten in the first place, to catch any minute particles that fell during the transfer from the Priests hand to the communicants tongue.

Not grasping at straws at all. Firstly I’m talking about before or after communion is even distributed to the faithful - ie during fractioning and being shifted from altar to communion rail and so on.

Small and invisible particles of anything travel large distances, like it or not - ever dropped something small and spent ages looking for it because it moved further than you thought, being so light? I know I have.

At the risk of grossing you out - studies have been done in bathrooms which have found that minute particles of fecal matter from the toilet can travel SIX FEET across the bathroom and end up on toothbrushes in the same room. Even if you put the lid of the toilet DOWN while flushing. There’s a fairly well-known TV show called ‘Mythbusters’ that actually did experiments to show all of this, so it’s not like I’m making it up.

It seems to me equally likely that small particles of host would similarly get on the clothing if not the hands of the priests or servers, or simply into the air, and travel equal distances. Ain’t no paten big enough to catch something that travels that far.

So as I said, do studies comparing tongue and hand and get back to me - then I’ll listen.

 

[mommyof4]

Ok, answer a question for this post-VII lady. What were the purpose of having altar rails? Why the excitement of having them back.

Thanks.

 

[Dropper]

Ok, answer a question for this post-VII lady. What were the purpose of having altar rails? Why the excitement of having them back.

Thanks.

Because an altar rail making a come back means that maybe, just maybe a little more reverence is also creeping back into the Church.

The “normative” rite of the Church is just so very open to innovation that a lot of the reverence of the Mass seems to have been lost in many places.

I hope that this is the case (reverence, coming back to the NO), but I don’t regularly assist at a NO Mass. I assist at a TLM… Reverence is usually not a problem at the TLM.

Speaking of reverence, anyone ever notice how reverent a Papal NO Mass is? I wonder how it’s okay that we have teen “Masses”, jazz “Masses”, polka “Masses” and the like when there is such a beautiful alternative…

 

[palmas85]

Ok, answer a question for this post-VII lady. What were the purpose of having altar rails? Why the excitement of having them back.

Thanks.

Altar rails separated the Sanctuary from the rest of the Church. They were normally about about three feet high or so, usually with a gate in the center that allowed acces to the Sanctuary area. Symbolically the emphasized the sacrednss of the sanctauary as the place where the Tabernacle and hence the Blessed Sacrament were. It was the modern equivalent of the old Jewish Holy of Holys. The laity by and large were not allowed into the Sanctuary except in rare circumstances due to its holy and sacred nature.

It was felt by many that this fostered an elitist attitude separating the ordained priesthood from the laity. It also was said to de-emphasize the idea of Christ present in the assembly of the faithful.due to the fact that the tabernacle was normally situated on the High Altar or adjacent to it. So after Vatican II many modern thinking pastors hadthe rails removed from their Churches. This was supposed to foster a strong sense of Christian commmunity that would come from knocking down the artificial man made barriers between the clergy and the laity. It was also supposed to emphasize that Christ was present in the assembly rather than just being physically present in the Tabernacle.

People received Holy Communion by kneeling at the Altar Rail. Most people I know that applaud the return of Altar Rails see it as a step towards re-emphasing the sacred nature of the Sanctuary and that of the Mass itself.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Did the same EMHC do a study about what happens when communion is given on the tongue?

I’d be willing to make a fairly sizable bet that even with patens there are still plenty of particles that fall on the ground as well to get trampled on.

Pax tecum!

The study showed that the particles came off when the host was transferred from hand to hand and then to the mouth. If the host is placed directly in someone’s mouth, with a paten under it, then unless the priest rubs his fingers over the floor, particles won’t end up on the floor.

Usually the same people that say we should recieve in the hand because that was done in 350 are the same people who are against using any Latin or chant because that’s too “ancient” and “outdated”. That being said, most people do not recieve in the hand the way you do. A lot of people, especially teenagers, just walk up, hold their hands up, recieve the host without saying “Amen”, put it in their mouth, and walk off.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Altar rails separated the Sanctuary from the rest of the Church. They were normally about about three feet high or so, usually with a gate in the center that allowed acces to the Sanctuary area. Symbolically the emphasized the sacrednss of the sanctauary as the place where the Tabernacle and hence the Blessed Sacrament were. It was the modern equivalent of the old Jewish Holy of Holys. The laity by and large were not allowed into the Sanctuary except in rare circumstances due to its holy and sacred nature.

Pax tecum!

Not always. For example, in the Middle Ages when rood screens were in churches, they were what seperated the sanctuary from the nave. The Communion rail was inside the sanctuary. Personally, I wish rood screens would make a comeback, too (as well as high altars and Communion rails).

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I wonder…if someone at my church had the forsight enough to encourage keeping that altar rail for “nostalgia” but really encouraged keeping for the secret motive of waiting for that right priest to come along some day…hmmmmm

I have heard that at my parish one of the prior pastors had been selling the (donated) statuary and other “Catholic” adornements at such an alarming pace that several parishoners quietly “borrowed” the remainder until he left the parish and then just as quietly slipped them back where they belonged.

 

[kage_ar]

Pax tecum!

And as you take the host into your hands, tiny particles come off of it, which in turn fall to the floor…

In Christ,
Rand

Any particles fall to the Paten held by the Server. These are then purified in the same manner as the Chalice, etc. Guess we are a strange lot 'round here, using Patens.

 

[ncjohn]

Usually the same people that say we should recieve in the hand because that was done in 350 are the same people who are against using any Latin or chant because that’s too “ancient” and “outdated”.

I’d love to see the documentation that shows this. I’m sure there must be some to state this as such a certainty.

I feel quite sure that most people receive in the hand because that is the way that most of the people in church have learned to do so. And I’m equally sure that most people who don’t prefer Latin or chant either just like beng able to understand what is being said or prefer the dominant musical style they have been raised in. And quite frankly, most of the parishes where I have heard Latin hymns used have done so very badly, and having heard Latin hymns done well before the change, I can honestly say that the only thing worse than current music done badly is Latin hymns or chant done badly.

That being said, most people do not recieve in the hand the way you do. A lot of people, especially teenagers, just walk up, hold their hands up, recieve the host without saying “Amen”, put it in their mouth, and walk off.

And I can tell you from firsthand experience that pre-Vatican 2 things were no different. There has always, in my experience, been a substantial portion of those at church who seem to exhibit little reverence, though my Certificate of Omniscience has expired and I am not actually able to tell what level of reverence they might actually be feeling.

Quite frankly the whole “you’re not being as reverent as I am” thing smacks greatly of judmentalism over something you have no way of ascertaining at all. And further, since the Church has said that both are acceptable, the argument of being “holier than the Church” in someone decrying one or the other would certainly seem justified.

My most common way of receiving is reverently in the hand, though I often receive on the tongue, especially if I happen to be holding one of the grandchildren. At a parish with an altar rail I would gladly receive on the tongue or by intinction if that were the norm of a parish. I have seldom, if ever, seen anyone “grab” the host, but quite frankly I don’t believe for a moment that someone who did would be any better disposed if they were to receive on the tongue.

The Church says both are equally acceptable. I for one will just continue to be joyful that people are there to honor praise our awesome God.

Peace,

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Any particles fall to the Paten held by the Server. These are then purified in the same manner as the Chalice, etc. Guess we are a strange lot 'round here, using Patens.

Pax tecum!

Most churches no longer use patens. And, I am not referring to particles falling as the person takes the host into their hands. I am referring to after the put the host in their mouth and walk away.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

I’d love to see the documentation that shows this. I’m sure there must be some to state this as such a certainty.

This is from first hand experience talking to people, on these forums and in “real life”. No documentation is needed. If you are accusing me of lying about this, then that is another story.

And I can tell you from firsthand experience that pre-Vatican 2 things were no different. There has always, in my experience, been a substantial portion of those at church who seem to exhibit little reverence, though my Certificate of Omniscience has expired and I am not actually able to tell what level of reverence they might actually be feeling.

I’m not talking about pre- and post-VII. I am talking about a manner of recieving the Eucharist regardless of which Mass one attends. And I never said anything about being able to tell what someone is feeling.

Quite frankly the whole “you’re not being as reverent as I am” thing smacks greatly of judmentalism over something you have no way of ascertaining at all. And further, since the Church has said that both are acceptable, the argument of being “holier than the Church” in someone decrying one or the other would certainly seem justified.

You want to show me where I said anything about being more reverant than anyone else? Don’t put words in my mouth. I also never said I was holier than the Church. Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I haven’t even said anything about recieving on the tongue being more reverant than in the hand. What I have been arguing is the certainty (as the study I cited showed, and I will try to find the thread on it) of particles of the host falling when someone recieves in the hand. Nothing in there about me being more reverant than anyone else or being judgmental. I am really getting tired of people on here saying others are being judgmental for expressing a concern about how the Eucharist is recieved. If I had said, “I am more reverant than you because x” or “I am a better Catholic than you because y” then I would be acting “holier than thou” and if I said “You are a bad Catholic because x” or “You are not reverant because y” then THAT would judging someone. I have done none of those things and I would appreciate if you apologized for calling me judgmental.

The Church says both are equally acceptable. I for one will just continue to be joyful that people are there to honor praise our awesome God.

No, the Church does not say both are equally acceptable. That is why Communion in the hand is illicit in almost every other country besides the US and Canada. I read an article yesterday from catholic-pages.com about how JPII had at times refused to give someone Communion in the hand.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[LilyM]

Pax tecum!

This is from first hand experience talking to people, on these forums and in “real life”. No documentation is needed. If you are accusing me of lying about this, then that is another story.

I’m not talking about pre- and post-VII. I am talking about a manner of recieving the Eucharist regardless of which Mass one attends. And I never said anything about being able to tell what someone is feeling.

You want to show me where I said anything about being more reverant than anyone else? Don’t put words in my mouth. I also never said I was holier than the Church. Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I haven’t even said anything about recieving on the tongue being more reverant than in the hand. What I have been arguing is the certainty (as the study I cited showed, and I will try to find the thread on it) of particles of the host falling when someone recieves in the hand. Nothing in there about me being more reverant than anyone else or being judgmental. I am really getting tired of people on here saying others are being judgmental for expressing a concern about how the Eucharist is recieved. If I had said, “I am more reverant than you because x” or “I am a better Catholic than you because y” then I would be acting “holier than thou” and if I said “You are a bad Catholic because x” or “You are not reverant because y” then THAT would judging someone. I have done none of those things and I would appreciate if you apologized for calling me judgmental.

No, the Church does not say both are equally acceptable. That is why Communion in the hand is illicit in almost every other country besides the US and Canada. I read an article yesterday from catholic-pages.com about how JPII had at times refused to give someone Communion in the hand.

In Christ,
Rand

Illicit in almost every other country? Bulldust. Communion in the hand is permitted, off the top of my head, in all of Europe, Britain, Australia and New Zealand … want me to go on?

And I would argue that if particles occur with reception in the hand, then they almost certainly also occur with reception on the tongue, for the reasons I gave in my previous post. I’d like to see a study comparing the two methods - anything else is only half of the picture.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Illicit in almost every other country? Bulldust. Communion in the hand is permitted, off the top of my head, in all of Europe, Britain, Australia and New Zealand … want me to go on?

Pax tecum!

It is not permitted in all of Europe. I know for a fact that in Poland it is still illicit because I just read an article about it yesterday.

See this article: catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
and this:
unavoce.org/cith.htm
and this:
laudetur-jesus-christus.blogspot.com/2006/10/communion-in-hand-by-father-altier.html

Still bulldust?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[LilyM]

Pax tecum!

It is not permitted in all of Europe. I know for a fact that in Poland it is still illicit because I just read an article about it yesterday.

See this article: catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
and this:
unavoce.org/cith.htm
and this:
laudetur-jesus-christus.blogspot.com/2006/10/communion-in-hand-by-father-altier.html

Still bulldust?

In Christ,
Rand

What’s your source on Poland?

In fact what is your source that a MAJORITY of countries don’t permit communion in the hand? I read about the Phillipines, to be sure, but that’s the only country that is mentioned by name as NOT permitting it.

I have personally received communion in Italy, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Britain, and the US as well as Australia … all of them countries where communion in the hand is both permitted and common.

Add those to Canada, New Zealand, France, Spain and Portugal (which countries I know of only by repute) and Mexico (and I believe Brazil), and you’d have have a very sizeable percentage, and possibly a majority, of the world’s Catholics living under an indult to receive in the hand. Are we talking number of countries where it is permitted or number of people permitted to receive it? Surely the latter is a significant consideration.

And I’ll see your articles and raise you this

Bulldust status lifted pending further enquiries